2013-M-241             Michael Wayne, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

MAJORITY:  Appellant Michael Wayne was convicted of murder in connection with the death of Mona Armendariz.  Wayne was sentenced to life in prison.  We consolidated Wayne’s direct appeal and his appeal from the denial of his first petition for post-conviction relief and ultimately affirmed his conviction.  Wayne filed three subsequent petitions for post-conviction relief, which were all

denied by the post-conviction court and affirmed by our court.

On February 14, 2012, Wayne filed what he captioned as a “Motion for DNA Analysis” pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1a (2012).  Wayne requested DNA testing of Armendariz’s underwear to prove he did not sexually assault Armendariz and that Armendariz was in sexual relationships with other individuals.

E ven if Wayne’s motion is construed to be a petition for post-conviction relief, the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition as time-barred under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c), was not an abuse of its discretion.

HELD:  1. Appellant’s motion filed pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1a (2012), was properly denied by the post-conviction court because the motion failed to establish that the evidence to be tested was subject to a chain of custody and was materially relevant to appellant’s actual innocence.

2. If appellant’s motion was properly treated as a petition, his claim was timebarred pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c) (2012), because appellant knew or should have known of the claim more than two years before the petition was filed.

 Affirmed.

CONCUR:  Justice Stras opined: “I agree with the court that Wayne has not established that the evidence he seeks to test, the victim’s underwear, has “been subject to a chain of custody sufficient to establish

that it has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any material aspect.”  I would end the analysis there, however, because “judicial restraint bids us to refrain from deciding any issue not essential to the disposition of the particular controversy before us.”  As tempting as it may be

to slam the door shut on an unmeritorious legal claim, alternative holdings come perilously close to the rendering of an advisory opinion.

Page (Gildea, Anderson, Dietzen, and Wright)

Concur:  Stras

Took no part:  Lillehaug

[MURDER]

A12-868,